Kulemin is a no go for me. This will sound funny, but the only way I deal Kulemin if it's a one for one. I know you'll think that's crazy, but that's how high I hold him in regard.

The best I would do, would be remove Mac in exchange for Connolly or Lombardi, but I'd upgrade Franson to Percy.

So...

Connolly/Lombardi + Kadri/Colborne + Percy + 1st (top 10 protected)

Nah, if it were Finn I might consider it, but otherwise I'd prefer the previous package. If that was what we got, I would be disappointed, but not indignant. But personally I would still hold out for one of Kulemin/JVR(unlikely)/Lupul.

Kulemin is a no go for me. This will sound funny, but the only way I deal Kulemin if it's a one for one. I know you'll think that's crazy, but that's how high I hold him in regard.

The best I would do, would be remove Mac in exchange for Connolly or Lombardi, but I'd upgrade Franson to Percy.

So...

Connolly/Lombardi + Kadri/Colborne + Percy + 1st (top 10 protected)

I'm curious what if we downgraded all the way to the worst piece Connolly and took Kadri + Colbourne instead of Percy. You keep Kulemin, Frattin, and Finn all pieces that we have discussed and your are wary about.

Nah, if it were Finn I might consider it, but otherwise I'd prefer the previous package. If that was what we got, I would be disappointed, but not indignant. But personally I would still hold out for one of Kulemin/JVR(unlikely)/Lupul.

I wish you guys had a better prospect pool to pick from to maybe help the deal out.

After looking at what you have in the system, methinks MG would jump all over an offer like mine if that's what Burke tabled. You'd help it out immensely by adding the likes of Kadri, Percy and a future 1st.

I'm curious what if we downgraded all the way to the worst piece Connolly and took Kadri + Colbourne instead of Percy. You keep Kulemin, Frattin, and Finn all pieces that we have discussed and your are wary about.

Connolly + Kadri + Colbourne + 1st(conditions we discussed before)

This might be acceptable if we were talking about trading Jonas Hiller. But not for Roberto Luongo.

I'm curious what if we downgraded all the way to the worst piece Connolly and took Kadri + Colbourne instead of Percy. You keep Kulemin, Frattin, and Finn all pieces that we have discussed and your are wary about.

Connolly + Kadri + Colbourne + 1st(conditions we discussed before)

I, personally would consider that, depending on what else we would get with Luongo.

I fear that the rest of the Leaf fan base would be less receptive to the idea.

We're getting awfully close to the deal that was accepted twenty threads ago... Yours may even be better given MacArthur instead of Lombardi and Franson instead of a Ashton + 2nd but its very close. It was:

I'm good with no Luongo. He's not the be all end all of goalies out there. We do have other options out there. Plus we could always just give Reimer another shot.

This deal has to make sense for both sides.

My offer IMO makes sense for both parties.

MacArthur + Kadri + Franson + 1st (top 10 protected)

for

Raymond + Luongo.

In this deal you get a 2nd liner, one of our top prospects, a capable dman with size and upside, not to mention a 1st (which I'm reluctant to deal, especially with our luck in past years)

We get, a player thats fallen out of favour in Vancouver (Raymond) and we get a 33 yr old allstar goalie that has a ******** contract with 10 yrs remaining on it.

That's the type of deal I expect, but not the exact pieces. If that was the exact deal we got I wouldn't be thrilled, but I would be okay with it in the end, just like the one I expect we will get.

I think Bozak will be included. Gillis apparently tried to sign him out of college too, and the Canucks need a third line center. Couple that with all the talk from BB about playing JVR at center and I bet he's decided Bozak is expendable for a top 5 goalie.

Switch MacArthur with Bozak, Kadri with Colborne, and Franson for Percy and I think that's really close to what the final deal will be, even if it's not what I want. I also don't see Burke wanting Raymond again, so maybe sub in a 3rd instead.

That's the type of deal I expect, but not the exact pieces. If that was the exact deal we got I wouldn't be thrilled, but I would be okay with it in the end, just like the one I expect we will get.

I think Bozak will be included. Gillis apparently tried to sign him out of college too, and the Canucks need a third line center. Couple that with all the talk from BB about playing JVR at center and I bet he's decided Bozak is expendable for a top 5 goalie.

Switch MacArthur with Bozak, Kadri with Colborne, and Franson for Percy and I think that's really close to what the final deal will be, even if it's not what I want. I also don't see Burke wanting Raymond again, so maybe sub in a 3rd instead.

We end up with Bozak, Colborne, Percy, 2014 1st for Lu, 2014 3rd.

Bozak is too important to us as our center depth is really lacking. If this was next year and we had an opportunity at Getzlaf, I'd be ok with dealing Bozak in a deal for Luongo.

I, personally would consider that, depending on what else we would get with Luongo.

I fear that the rest of the Leaf fan base would be less receptive to the idea.

This is the deal straight up for Luongo. The reasoning is that you guys have Grabovski, Bozak, Steckel, Mclement, Lombardi at center. You are not losing any roster wingers, in fact you will be adding JVR + Frattin to last year roster. So really there is no space to add anyone. Cap hits almost balance each other out. I don't want to take a futures package only, but based on how you and your proposals have been talking I think this is the most obvious way you see a major improvement on your team without losing anyone. Think about it you are adding Luongo, JVR, Frattin to your roster last year.

This is the deal straight up for Luongo. The reasoning is that you guys have Grabovski, Bozak, Steckel, Mclement at center. You are not losing any roster wingers, in fact you will be adding JVR + Frattin to last year roster. So really there is no space to add anyone. Cap hits almost balance each other out. I don't want to take a futures package only, but based on how you and your proposals have been talking I think this is the most obvious way you see a major improvement on your team without losing anyone. Think about it you are adding Luongo, JVR, Frattin to your roster last year.

My only concern is that we are dealing 2 major pieces from our prospect and we're dealing a future top prospect (in the 1st)

It's not a deal I'd prefer, but one I would consider. The rest of Leafs nation , I assume, would laugh at the offer.

Right now it's all about gauging the amount of overlap there is on what's the most Toronto can give up vs what's the least we'd expect in order to move Luongo. A deal will have to fall somewhere between thos two values.

Van gets two high end top 9 forwards who can fill in easily in there top six for injury relief, a solid prospect with skill and size, and either another solid d prospect or a roster offensive d man with a great shot to use on the second pp. The leafs get an elite tender, and a solid two way center prospect.

Van gets two high end top 9 forwards who can fill in easily in there top six for injury relief, a solid prospect with skill and size, and either another solid d prospect or a roster offensive d man with a great shot to use on the second pp. The leafs get an elite tender, and a solid two way center prospect.

I'm sorry, but this trade is dead in your first sentence. You have just created one of the funniest double-negatives I have heard in a long time: high end top 9 forwards.......lol. Do you understand what you are saying here?

Van gets two high end top 9 forwards who can fill in easily in there top six for injury relief, a solid prospect with skill and size, and either another solid d prospect or a roster offensive d man with a great shot to use on the second pp. The leafs get an elite tender, and a solid two way center prospect.

Nope, fairly easily. Colborne is the only one with a reasonably high upside, but the rest is meh. Add Gaunce and it's easy to walk away from this one.

I'm sorry, but this trade is dead in your first sentence. You have just created one of the funniest double-negatives I have heard in a long time: high end top 9 forwards.......lol. Do you understand what you are saying here?

What was meant by that is they are high end 3rd line forwards who can produce well in a top 6 situation as well, not really all that hard to understand is it?

Now obviously a lot of things need to happen, but this ain't impossible and I hate to say it, but you might win the Stanley cup with this roster. I feel so guilty right now, I have never been this nice to a Leaf fan.

Now obviously a lot of things need to happen, but this ain't impossible and I hate to say it, but you might win the Stanley cup with this roster. I feel so guilty right now, I have never been this nice to a Leaf fan.

Ha. Thanks. The bottom line in all of this is none of us have any power, we're all just posting our opinions because we are all passionate.

For all we know, like the reports, this deal could already be done, and we're now just waiting for the CBA to be worked out. Not likely, but, you never know.

Nope, fairly easily. Colborne is the only one with a reasonably high upside, but the rest is meh. Add Gaunce and it's easy to walk away from this one.

Well all I've heard throughout this thread is van needs players to help now because were in a win now mode. Also there have been other proposals which are strictly future based. All I tried to do here is combine both, now when you combine future and current assets your not going to get the high end on either side. The deal helps van now and in the future. The fact that Guance was added and you didnt like it is understandable, so would you say no to that deal if it was just for lou? Considering both forwards are top 6 on our team the prospects being given are between B and B+ and your also getting a 2nd in the year of your choice. This deal is comparable to the package given for Rick Nash so really how much more is really needed?